4.8 Article

Analysis of capacitive and electrodialytic contributions to water desalination by flow-electrode CDI

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 296-303

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.07.049

关键词

Capacitive deionization; Flow-electrode; Charge transfer; Brackish water

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP150100854]
  2. UNSW Vice-Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellowship [RG152482]
  3. Australian Research Council [LP150100854] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While flow-electrode capacitive deionization (FCDI) is a potential alternative to brackish and/or sea water desalination, there is limited understanding of both the fate of ions following migration across the ion exchange membranes and the mechanisms responsible for ion separation. In this study, we investigate the desalting performance of an FCDI system operated over a range of conditions. Results show that although ion transport as a result of electrodialysis is inevitable in FCDI (and is principally responsible for pH excursion in the flow electrode), the use of high carbon content ensures that a high proportion of the charge and counterions are retained in the electrical double layers of the flowing carbon particles, even at high charging voltages (e.g., 2.0 V) during the deionization process. Estimation of the portions of sodium and chloride ions adsorbed in the flow electrode after migration through the membranes suggests that the ongoing capacitive adsorption exhibits asymmetric behavior with the anodic particles demonstrating better affinity for CI- (than the cathodic particles for Na+) during electrosorption. These findings provide an explanation for the change in electrode properties that are observed under imperfect adsorption scenarios and provide insight into aspects of the design and operation of flow electrode pairs that is critical to achieving effective desalination by FCDI. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据